• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Ring-necked Duck?? (1 Viewer)

bobsofpa

Well-known member
What do I have here? I know it is a Ring-necked Duck, but it does not look like either the male or female. Is it a Juvenile? The photograph was taken in late February which is in the middle of the mating season for them so it should not be molting. Location, Viera Wetlands in east, central Florida.

Took a closer look. Only the female has an eye-ring. So, this may be just a female that the head is a little darker than normal.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2919em.jpg
    IMG_2919em.jpg
    70.9 KB · Views: 195
Last edited:
Agree with female RND. RNs, like most ducks, molt from their juvenile plumage around October into adult breeding plumage. So as far as field identification goes, in winter, most ducks' ages cannot be determined. I can't speak to this bird going through molt because I'm not familiar with the nonbreeding female RND plumage.
 
Yep, agree with RND.

Have any of you ever wondered why this is called Ring-necked Duck? Neither sex of any age or in any plumage has anything remotely resembling a ring around the neck. Why was it not called Ring-billed Duck? (or is there another duck of that name somewhere?).

Colin
 
Colin Key said:
Yep, agree with RND.

Have any of you ever wondered why this is called Ring-necked Duck? Neither sex of any age or in any plumage has anything remotely resembling a ring around the neck. Why was it not called Ring-billed Duck? (or is there another duck of that name somewhere?).

Colin

You echoed my thoughts.
 
I'm pretty sure adult males in breeding plumage have a chestnut-brown ring around the neck - unfortunately it is only something I've read, as it would appear to be invisible to the naked eye! If someone has access to a decent bird book (I'm at work) I'm sure it will confirm this (or not!).
 
Have just had a quick trawl through my library. Not a single field guide shows an illustration with any hint of a "ring" around the neck, and the only reference to any ring which I could find is in Beaman & Madge "Handbook of Bird Identification", p.143 "Narrow chestnut collar around lower neck that gives the species its name can only be discerned under ideal conditions". The plate of that species (p. 169) shows not a hint of this feature.

Bit of a "bummer" if you ask me.

Colin :stuck:
 
It requires strong(ish) sunlight to appear it seems. Presumably most prominent on breeding-plumaged birds.

Guess you wouldnt see it if the bird is hunched up/asleep as they so often are.
 
Keep in mind Colin, back when they first named the Ring-necked Duck, they didn't "bird," they "shot." So they had specimens right in the hand, and in the hand, the ring on the duck's neck actually seems quite prominent.
 
Josh & Alex,

O.K., its there (just, and with a load of imagination), but hardly a prominent feature on which to allocate a name - still reckon that Ring-billed Duck would have been more appropriate.

Colin (o)<
 
Colin Key said:
Josh & Alex,

O.K., its there (just, and with a load of imagination), but hardly a prominent feature on which to allocate a name - still reckon that Ring-billed Duck would have been more appropriate.

Colin (o)<

A load of imagination? Why? You aren't imagining that brown ring you're seeing.

Don't disagree that Ring-billed would have made more sense. But there we go.
 
Josh Jones said:
A load of imagination? Why? You aren't imagining that brown ring you're seeing.

Don't disagree that Ring-billed would have made more sense. But there we go.

Guess what I found in the 3000+ photographs I took in my recent trip to Florida. A photograph of a Ring-necked Duck that shows the brown ring around its neck. Now I am a believer even though none of my references show it.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3037em.jpg
    IMG_3037em.jpg
    84 KB · Views: 111
Is it the most prominent feature for field ID? No. But is it a feature? Yes.

Are we gonna have another slowly-declining-in-respect-for-each-other heated "discussion" on standarized names? (For those out of the know, believe me, you're in the better place...)
 
Last edited:
...as if the red belly of a Red-Bellied Woodpecker stands out....

...as if you can actually tell a difference in bill length between a Long- and Short-Billed Dowitcher....

...and how often do you check the tarsal-webbing of a Semipalmated Sandpiper to clinch that ID?

...ever actually seen the ruby crown on a Kinglet?

These names are just labels...it would be great if they were all descriptive, but so many have no relation to field marks. Just be glad we don't have to use the latin names if we don't want to. ;-)

Andy - Newark, CA
 
Warning! This thread is more than 17 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top